258 
The Survival in Farming. 
costly and useless or unnecessaiy implements, and more upon 
hand labour rendered necessary by tlie neglect of cheaper means 
of cleaning land. 
These statements may appear as truisms to experienced 
farmers, and yet it is necessary to make them in order to clear 
away sources of misapprehension. There is, too, another point 
upon which a disclaimer is necessary on behalf of high farming, 
and it is this : that ornamental farming is not essential to high 
farming. It is true that a thoroughly well cultivated farm 
must always be pleasing to the eyes of an experienced farmer, 
that well-kept fences are essential to cleanliness, and that there 
is no economy in letting implements, carriages, and machines 
rot for want of an occasional coat of paint. Nevertheless, money 
is often spent for ornamentation alone, and therefore wasted, as 
far as the biisiness of farming is concerned, so that this item 
ought to be eliminated in considering whether high farming 
pays or not. 
In short, high farming must be taken at its best in compar- 
ing it with low farming, also taken at its best, eliminating, as 
far as possible, all badness of farming of either the high or the 
low class. Such a comparison, indeed, Avould be effected if we 
could examine the financial records of any given number ot 
high and low farmers in different parts of the country who have 
survived the long trial of depression, for it may be taken for 
granted that, as a rule, the incapable members of each division 
have collai^sed. That such an examination is impossible " goes 
"without saying." The nearest approach to it is the ascertain- 
ment of the opinions of experienced and extensive observers as 
to the results of the two styles of farming under the trial of 
depression, and this means of information I have not neglected, 
as will be seen presently. Before giving the evidence collected, 
however, I have something more to say in relation to the state- 
ment under consideration and the arguments by which it is 
supported. 
The law of diminishing returns is often cited as proving 
that high farming cannot pay when prices are low. This law, 
however, is very misleading when stated without the qualifica- 
tions which apply to it in great variety under different circum- 
stances, "^riiere is a limit, varying with soil, climate, season, 
and other conditions, beyond which the profit on the production 
of any crop is in inverse proportion to the expenditure, becom- 
ing less and less as outlay is increased, until it vanishes and 
gives place to loss. It is also true that the lower the price of 
produce is, the sooner the limit is reached. But it is begging 
the question to assert, without direct proof, that, at current 
